Leeds City Council (202408668)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408668

Leeds City Council

10 January 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property.

Background

The resident has held a secure tenancy since 2023. The property is a 2-bedroom house where the resident lives with her 2-year old son.
On 21 November 2023 the contractor attended to repair the 3 inch gap between the kitchen/cellar door, door frame, and the kitchen floor. The kitchen floor is also the cellar ceiling. The contractor found wood worm/ wood rot in the kitchen floorboards. The repair records shows the resident was concerned about the floorboards in her son’s bedroom being unsafe. There is no record or explanation as to why the resident brought this to the landlord’s attention.
An appointment was made for a technical officer and supervisor to inspect the property on 22 November 2023. A further appointment was made on 17 January 2024 to inspect the wood worm/wood rot issue.
The resident complained to the landlord on 22 January 2024. She said:
1. The contractor did not repair the kitchen/cellar door, door frame, and kitchen floor on 21 November 2023. She was told the floor needed to be taken up.
2. The kitchen was very cold due to the draft from the gap between the kitchen/cellar door, door frame, and kitchen floor.
3. She continued to chase the landlord about the floor but had received no response from it.
The resident reported to the landlord that the living room window handle had fallen off on 30 January 2024.
On 2 February 2024 the landlord issued the resident a stage 1 response. It said:
1. It apologised about the outstanding repair, lack of communication, and the impact it has had on her.
2. It explained that due to the severity of the repair, it had arranged a technical officer and supervisor to visit the property.
3. It said it would learn from its lack of communication and delay in repairs by undertaking further staff training.
The resident reported there was water ingress from the roof and chimney into her son’s bedroom on 2 February 2024. The landlord raised a repair job.
The contractor attended on 7 February 2024 to repair the living room window handle but was unable to access the property.
On 16 February 2024 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The resident said:
1. She was disappointed with the landlord’s stage 1 response.
2. She was told the repair would be completed the next working day after the inspection. She was now being told that another inspection would be needed. No repair or inspection had taken place.
3. She raised concerns about the floor being a hazard and making the property cold and that her concerns had not been taken seriously by the landlord.
4. She continued to chase the landlord about the floor but had received no response.
On 21 February 2024 a plasterer attended the property but could not carry out any repairs without a joint inspection of the exposed timbers in the cellar ceiling.
A contractor attended and completed the repair to the living room window handle on 22 February 2024.
On 26 February 2024 the roofing repair was allocated to the roofing contractor. The contractor undertook a roof inspection and established the chimney flashing was causing water ingress into the property.
The landlord issued the resident a stage 2 response on 15 March 2024. It said:
1. It apologised for the delays and outstanding repairs.
2. It had completed the inspection of the floor and arranged for 2 contractors to attend on 28 March 2024. The work undertaken would be to remove a section of plasterboard in the cellar to allow access to the joists for inspection. The repairs would be carried out on the affected area of the joists and the plasterboard would be put back and made good.
3. It had spoken to the resident who confirmed she had no further issue with her living room window handle.
4. The landlord contractors undertook a roof inspection and established the chimney flashing was causing water ingress into her son’s bedroom. The contractors would confirm an appointment. There would be external works to fix the roof and then internal works to address the damage caused by the water ingress.
5. The landlord said it had undertaken learning from missed appointments, delays, and lack of communication.
On 2 April 2024 the contractor attended to repair the living room window handle but the job was recorded as already complete.
The roofing work was completed on 9 May 2024.
An appointment was made for a contractor to attend on 4 October 2024 to replace the rotten kitchen floor near the cellar entrance.
On 7 October 2024 the landlord phoned the resident to book an appointment to repair the floor. It left a voicemail with the appointment details and also put the information into a text.
The landlord arranged for the removal of a section of the floor on 6 November 2024 but was unable to make contact with the resident to confirm the appointment.
The resident brought her complaint to this Service as she remained unhappy with the outstanding repairs to the kitchen/cellar door, door frame, and the kitchen floor. The resident raised the window handle and roof repair as part of her stage 2 complaint and brought these issues to us. She explained she had not been informed of the outcome of the inspection of the floor. She said that plasterboard has been left on the cellar floor and electric wires had been left exposed, making the room dangerous for her and her family. The resident was worried that the kitchen floor is unsafe and her and her family will fall through. Due to the 3 inch gap between the kitchen/cellar door, door frame and the kitchen floor, she has had increased energy costs to keep her home warm which is having a financial impact.
The landlord has confirmed that the repairs are still outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident told this Service about damp and mould in her home when she came to this Service. The resident has not raised this issue to the landlord. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues prior to our involvement. The resident can bring her complaint to this Service if she remains unhappy once the issues have completed the landlord’s complaint process.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property.

Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, and to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout her tenancy.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook states that it has 3 categories of responsive repair which are:
1. Emergency, which it aims to attend to within 24 hours.
2. Priority, which it aims to attend to within 3 and 7 working days.
3. General, which it aims to attend to within 20 working days.
In this section of the assessment, we will consider the repair issues the resident raised, the 3 inch gap between the kitchen/cellar door and the kitchen floor/cellar ceiling, door frame, roof and chimney leak, and living room window handle.

Resident reports of a 3 inch gap between the kitchen/cellar door and the kitchen floor/cellar ceiling and door frame.

In the landlord’s repairs policy, it says the landlord is responsible for major repairs to timber floors. The kitchen has a timber floor which is also the cellar ceiling. The landlord considered these as a batch repair and are completed within 60 days. In the landlord’s repairs handbook it says batch repairs are non-urgent repairs and items of replacement that may require a pre-inspection.
On 7 November 2023, a repair was raised for the 3 inch gap between the kitchen/cellar door and the kitchen floor/cellar ceiling and door frame. The contractor attended within 10 working days on 21 November 2023. This was within the landlord’s general repair timeframes set out in its repairs handbook. The repair records show the repair did not go ahead due to the contractor identifying wood worm/wood rot in the floorboards.
It was a reasonable action by the landlord when it arranged for a technical officer and supervisor to inspect the wood worm/ wood rot on 22 November 2023. However, the resident also raised concerns about her son’s bedroom floor, the landlord did not address this concern which was unreasonable.
There appears to be no further action taken by the landlord until the resident chased the landlord by email on 17 January 2024 for updates on the floor. This was 41 working days after she reported the issue. There was a lack of focus from the landlord in terms of how it could resolve the ongoing wood worm/wood rot and it should have been more proactive to progress the repair. It was unreasonable that the resident was left in a position where she was having to chase the landlord for update.
The resident was frustrated that the landlord had not progressed the repair and made a complaint to the landlord about this on 22 January 2024. As part of her complaint she said the 3 inch gap between the kitchen/cellar door and kitchen floor was making her property cold. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 1 and stage 2 response to the resident and considered her concerns in its actions. The resident has told this Service that as a result of the delays, her energy costs to keep her home warm have increased. It is unclear if the resident informed the landlord of this, however it was aware of the resident’s concerns about the impact the repairs were having on the temperature in the property. The landlord missed an opportunity to consider if it could support the resident over the time of the complaint with her concerns about the temperature of the property.
After the resident made her complaint, a technical officer and supervisor conducted a inspection of the property on 8 February 2024. This was an appropriate action by the landlord.
When the plasterer attended the property, it was noted that the repairs could not be carried out on 21 February 2024 without a joint inspection of the exposed timbers in the cellar ceiling. It is unclear from the landlord’s records as to why the plasterer needed a joint inspection after the previous inspections weeks earlier. In its stage 2 response the landlord explained that it had arranged for 2 contractors to attend on the 18 March 2024 to remove a section of plasterboard in the cellar to allow access to the joists for inspection. The repairs would be carried out on the affected area of the joists and the plasterboard would be put back and made good. It is unclear whether this inspection and repair took place.
In the landlord’s repairs log it shows the removal of the section of plasterboard for the joist inspection was completed on 23 May 2024.
The landlord continued to make attempts to access the property between June 2024 and August 2024, with no success. The resident cancelled the repair on 22 July 2024. It is recognised this would have impacted on the time taken to carry out the repairs and was outside the landlord’s control. The landlord’s records show it phoned and texted the resident and it left no-access cards at the property. This was a reasonable action by the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 September 2024 and it listened to her concerns about the woodworm/wood rot in the kitchen floor/cellar ceiling and arranged for a surveyor to visit her property. The landlord undertook an inquisitorial approach by arranging a further investigation which was appropriate.
Following an inspection on 4 October 2024 the landlord records show that the kitchen floor near the cellar entrance was rotten and a section was in need of replacement. It is unclear from the landlord’s evidence whether the outstanding woodworm/wood rot in the kitchen floor/cellar ceiling repair on 6 November 2024 was completed. The communication log shows the landlord was unable to get hold of the resident to arrange for its contractor to attend to carry out the repair.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not complete the repair to the 3 inch gap between the kitchen/cellar door, door frame and the kitchen floor. This repair is still outstanding and is over 9 months after it was reported to the landlord. This is outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs handbook. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord did face some challenges in carrying out appointments and had issues with access on more than one occasion. There is evidence of gaps of communication, where the resident had to chase for an update between November 2023 to January 2024. There were delays by the landlord at the beginning and it did not address her concerns about the bedroom. The later evidence shows that while there may have been access issues there was still some further delays into undertaking the repairs. The landlord’s handling of the repairs was not in line with its policy, there were avoidable delays and at times its communication was poor. This was a failing.

Repairs to the roof and chimney leak.

In the landlord’s repairs policy, it says the landlord is responsible for the structure and outside of building, including the roof and chimney stack. It is unclear when the resident first raised concerns about water ingress from the roof and chimney flashing. The landlord’s repairs log shows it was aware of the issue by, no later than 2 February 2024. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook states that roof leaks repairs will be carried out within 7 working days.
On 13 February 2024 it undertook a roof inspection which identified that the chimney flashing was causing water ingress. The roof and chimney repair was first allocated to a roofing contractor. This was reasonable action by the landlord.
In the repairs log on 12 March 2024 the contractor inspected and photographs were taken of the roof and the damage inside the property. It is unclear why another roof inspection was undertaken by the landlord.
The resident had raised concerns that the water ingress was still occurring in her son’s bedroom. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it told the resident it would address the internal works to her son’s bedroom once the external works to the roof and chimney had been repaired. This was a reasonable approach as if it had not fixed the outside first further damage may have been caused internally. In the landlord’s repairs log there were photographs taken by the contractor showing the roof and chimney repairs had been completed between 7 May 2024 and 9 May 2024. It also showed a picture of the internal works to her son’s bedroom. It took the landlord over 75 working days from the date the resident reported the issue to complete the repair. This is not within its timescales set out its repairs handbook which was unreasonable. The landlord did recognise and aplogise to the resident for the delays which was appropriate. It explained it had taken learning from the missed appointments, delays and lack of communication.

Living room window handle

In the landlord’s repairs handbook it states it is responsible for windows that cannot be secured properly.
The resident reported to the landlord that the living room window handle had fallen off making her feel unsafe in her property as it could not closed securely on 30 January 2024. The contractor attended on 7 February 2024 to repair the living room window handle but was unable to access the property. The landlord attended the repair within a reasonable timeframe.
On 23 February 2024 the contractor attended and completed the repair. The contractor reattended on 2 April 2024 but the job was already completed. This shows there was a lack of oversight and coordination of the repair by the landlord. This caused inconvenience to the resident. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not have up to date records of this repair having been completed which resulted in 2 contractors attending the property on 2 separate occasions.
In the landlord’s repair’s policy it states a priority repair would be attended between 3 to 7 working days. The landlord did not meet its repairs obligations under its repairs policy as this would have been a priority repair due to the safety and security aspect. It took the landlord 18 working days to complete this repair. Although the landlord faced some factors outside its control due to access issues. Its record keeping caused the resident some inconvenience of sending a contractor when the repair had been completed, but the impact was minimal.

Summary

The landlord’s communication with the resident about the repairs was not consistent and it failed to manage her expectations. There have been instances where its communication has caused the resident dissatisfaction with the landlord. The resident has experienced delays and repeatedly had to chase progress on her repairs. She understandably believed that the landlord was not taking the appropriate action to resolve the repairs. Again, this will have increased her sense of distress. The landlord’s communication with the resident was unreasonable.
The matter became protracted and caused inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. The landlord did not meet its timeframes for the repairs to the 3 inch gap between the kitchen/cellar door, the kitchen door frame and the kitchen floor, the water ingress, and living room window handle. Failing to make the repairs in a timely manner meant delays in resolving the issues which likely prolonged the resident’s sense of distress. It is understood that some of the issues may initially have been outside of its control when carrying out the repairs because it was unsuccessful in getting access to the property.
The landlord has acknowledged failings in its complaint responses and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and this was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Overall the landlord attempted to put things right with an acknowledgement and an apology in its responses. This did not go far enough or consider awarding the resident any financial redress for distress or inconvenience it. The landlord’s own compensation policy says where the resident suffered significant inconvenience over a sustained period, it will award compensation. Using the landlord’s compensation policy a payment of £450 is appropriate in recognition of the impact on the resident and her family. The breakdown of this is £50 for the window handle, £200 for the roof and chimney leak, and £200 for the gap under the kitchen floor. This is in line with this Service’s guidance on remedies where there have been a failing that have had a significant but not a permanent impact. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers a payment for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident is reasonable. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within 4 weeks of the date of this report to:
1. To apologise in writing to the resident for failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £450 for distress and inconvenience in relation to the handling of the repairs.
3. To contact that the resident within 4 weeks of this report to arrange a suitable appointment to carry out the outstanding works to the kitchen floor/cellar ceiling. The resident and this Service should be provided with a schedule of works and works to be completed with 8 weeks.
4. A post works inspection should be completed and a copy provided to this Service.
5. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to meet with the resident to offer any advice, support, signpost her to any organisation or agencies to assist her with her increased energy costs.
The landlord is recommended to meet with the resident to discuss any outstanding repairs in the property. This should include her son’s bedroom floor.